Comments on: Them mooslems int got no relijunhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000hourly1By: Ben in Atlantahttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83805
Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:31:16 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83805As in anywhere else it might depend on who you ask. I didn’t hear “Batty-man” once last time I was there. I didn’t stay in an all-inclusive resort either. I wanted a truer experience. If everyone always adhered to the gay travel boycotts nothing would ever change. Jamaica’s own LGBT population also needs support.
]]>By: Grahamhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83791
Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:39:19 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83791^well, that’s good to hear. so why is that in a country as devout as Jamaica that the message isn’t getting through?
]]>By: Ben in Atlantahttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83755
Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:14 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83755“Find me one Jamaican clergyman that will condemn the persecution of gays in that country.”

I can give you a list of 15 ministers at our sister center in Kingston that will and do. The Sunday talks are archived.

]]>By: Grahamhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83731
Mon, 22 Nov 2010 02:44:21 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83731“That is true, because Christianity is compatible with a separation of church and state.”

Only compatible in the sense that it has conceded to the demands of secularism and adjusted accordingly. Even today we have a religious right which is actively trying to dismantle the separation, trying to push us in the other direction. It’ss more acute in the USA than elsewhere, and this is no coincidence; the US is more Christian than anywhere else in the west.

“Is Islam? There used to be one secular Muslim state, Turkey, which kept the Islamist hordes at bay through repeated military coups.”

Uh, I don’t know about repeated military coups so much as Attaturk.

“But now, even that country is Islamizing at a rapid pace. Why? Because a separation of church and state is alien to Islam. Muhammad was both God and Caesar.”

I didn’t say that Islam doesn’t have a political character. But christianity does as well,or at least some versions of it. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the dominionist movement.

“Many Enlightenment thinkers were Christians, and a significant number were priests. Think of the Abbé Sieyes, whose pamphlet was instrumental in pushing France toward revolution.”

Those were liberal christians, who rejected the orthodox doctrines. There are liberal muslims also, although they are less prevelant in the Islamic world due to the social/political situation there.

“Not that there was no significant opposition. But you can’t compare it to Islam. A Voltaire could work pretty much freely in 18th century France, while people who make much milder criticisms of Islam in our very day are not safe, even in nominally secular countries like Egypt and Turkey.”

Because 18th century France had been affected by the renaissance, and classical ideas about democracy etc. were replacing the christian doctrine of the authority of the church and the divine right of kings. The church didn’t support that, they reisted it. The church lost though, and so France has Laicité.

“It helped that Jesus did not command his followers to kill anyone who leaves his religion, like that wonderful man Muhammad did.”

Jesus may not have, but he wasnt’ the only person to contribute to the corpus of christian though. Luther told his followers to murder Jews, for instance.

“This is not entirely accurate. Historians generally agree that it was the collapse of the Roman Empire and its successor states that destroyed the classical foundations of Western civilization, not Christianity. And those Renaissance people were *all* Christians. So it’s not as black and white as you would argue.”

They may have been Christians, but their work was reviving the graeco-roman heritage, which the Christians did willfully destroy. Look at the library of alexandria, the murder of hypatia…of course they were Christians, because everyone was then, but they were beginnig to explore the ideas that would lead us all away from dogma.

“Go to a christian country that hasn’t been developed and secularized, like jamaica, and tell me how loving and peaceful the folks there are…”

“Jamaica has full freedom of religion, which no Islamic country, not even Turkey, has.”

Right, freedom of relgion that allows Christians to roam the streets in search of gays and lesbians to murder. Find me one Jamaican clergyman that will condemn the persecution of gays in that country.

And anyway, secular leaders like Mosadeq have bene removed by us, and that’s contributed to the failure of secualrism in the mid-east. Remember, the last thing the west has wanted historically has been the development and progress of those countries.

“Christianity does not guarantee civilization, and I have never claimed that. It does seem to be (at the very least) less bad than other religions though.”

I can agree with that.

“And Islam seems to be much, much worse than other religions in poisoning the minds of its adherents and destroying the countries where they live. There are many Christian-majority countries that are civilized.”

Because the west has moved away from Christianity and towards secularism. Many of the Christians in those countries are more or less just nominal christians anyway. The devout ones are stil quite scary. Is what Martin Ssempa is doing civilized?

“Find me a single Muslim-majority country that we can call civilized. You won’t find one. Even Muslims in countries where they are a tiny minority are a frequent source of crime, terrorism and trouble. Coincidence?”

certainly not.

“He seemed to say that he concludes that they are all false, not independent of the fact that there is disagreement, but because of it. What would the purpose of mentioning that all religions think that other religions are wrong be otherwise?”

Simply to point out they since they are all dogmatic in their view they have “the truth”, the pragmatic solution for the state is to give no one any official status.

That is true, because Christianity is compatible with a separation of church and state. Is Islam? There used to be one secular Muslim state, Turkey, which kept the Islamist hordes at bay through repeated military coups. But now, even that country is Islamizing at a rapid pace. Why? Because a separation of church and state is alien to Islam. Muhammad was both God and Caesar.

“Ultimately Christianity couldn’t stop the enlightenment though.”

Many Enlightenment thinkers were Christians, and a significant number were priests. Think of the Abbé Sieyes, whose pamphlet was instrumental in pushing France toward revolution. Not that there was no significant opposition. But you can’t compare it to Islam. A Voltaire could work pretty much freely in 18th century France, while people who make much milder criticisms of Islam in our very day are not safe, even in nominally secular countries like Egypt and Turkey. It helped that Jesus did not command his followers to kill anyone who leaves his religion, like that wonderful man Muhammad did.

“After all, it was the christians who tried to destroy the classical foundaitons of western civlization, only to see them re-emerge in the renaissance. ”

This is not entirely accurate. Historians generally agree that it was the collapse of the Roman Empire and its successor states that destroyed the classical foundations of Western civilization, not Christianity. And those Renaissance people were *all* Christians. So it’s not as black and white as you would argue.

“Go to a christian country that hasn’t been developed and secularized, like jamaica, and tell me how loving and peaceful the folks there are…”

Jamaica has full freedom of religion, which no Islamic country, not even Turkey, has. Not that it is terribly civilized. Like I said, Islam is rotten at the core, and it is fundamentally incompatible with any form of civilization. Christianity is not. Christianity does not guarantee civilization, and I have never claimed that. It does seem to be (at the very least) less bad than other religions though. And Islam seems to be much, much worse than other religions in poisoning the minds of its adherents and destroying the countries where they live. There are many Christian-majority countries that are civilized. Find me a single Muslim-majority country that we can call civilized. You won’t find one. Even Muslims in countries where they are a tiny minority are a frequent source of crime, terrorism and trouble. Coincidence?

“Your mis-characterizing what he’s saying. He’s not stating that all truth claims are equally valid; all he’s saying is that all relgious claims are equally false, that is to say, totally false. ”

He seemed to say that he concludes that they are all false, not independent of the fact that there is disagreement, but because of it. What would the purpose of mentioning that all religions think that other religions are wrong be otherwise? That is how relativist arguments are generally structured. “Who are we to say that Muslims should not stone people to death? They think that we are wrong!” Or: “What gives us the right to impose Western values on other cultures?” Yeah, people can be wrong – a shock to some, I’m sure.

]]>By: Grahamhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83629
Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:07:54 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83629“Now that’s an argument! Also, atheists hold that religions are wrong, whereas religionists hold that atheism is wrong. I guess they are all wrong! There is and is not a god! Urban VIII thinks that Galileo is wrong, Galileo holds that the pope is wrong. I think that 2+2 is 4, my friend thinks that it’s 5. How could we ever say that anyone is right or wrong when there is… disagreement?!? Hail to the Gospel of Relativism.”

Your mis-characterizing what he’s saying. He’s not stating that all truth claims are equally valid; all he’s saying is that all relgious claims are equally false, that is to say, totally false. Obviously he believes that his view that they’re all BS is true while their claims are not. No relativism there.

]]>By: Grahamhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83628
Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:01:54 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83628“What an egocentric view of the world, as if everything revolves around you and who is or is not bothering you. How about moving to an Islamic-majority country of your choice and seeing whether Muslims will force religion on you or not. There are plenty of Christian-majority countries that are free, now try to find an Islamic-majority country that is.”

All of those Christian-Majority countries are really secularized contries. The Christian right in those countries are constantly trying to make them less free. This is nothing new. Ultimately Christianity couldn’t stop the enlightenment though. Just because Christianity couldn’t stop the progress toward freedom, justice, and rationality in the west doesn’t mean it hasn’t/isn’t trying. After all, it was the christians who tried to destroy the classical foundaitons of western civlization, only to see them re-emerge in the renaissance. Go to a christian country that hasn’t been developed and secularized, like jamaica, and tell me how loving and peaceful the folks there are…

]]>By: Emily Khttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83614
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:25:43 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83614Craig, I think that the [secular] US Constitution comes into play when it comes to popular votes that would have unconstitutional things come into play.

For example, all of the Haredi Jews living in Brooklyn could vote to make it illegal for a woman to walk down their street wearing a tank top or a shirt that exposed her midriff. But I believe that this would be invalidated by city/state/federal law that would prohibit this type of discrimination: as long as the woman is decently clothed, she may walk down a public street in Brooklyn, no matter what the members of the neighborhood think.

I think that sodomy laws are still officially on some books in certain states – possibly approved by a majority of conservative Christians – but these laws cannot be enforced because the SCOTUS has ruled such laws unconstitutional.

This also shows how important a secular government is, especially so that unpopular minorities can be protected. In Israel, a very powerful voting bloc is indeed the ultra-orthodox Haredi Jewish population. As a result of their having so much clout, marriage is controlled by their religious standards. That is Israel, however. Their system, though democratic, is different from ours.

]]>By: L. Junius Brutushttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83588
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:33:47 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83588“I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any position that condemns one (or any) religion based on that religions own belief structure. ”

I guess Scientology can’t be condemned. Or fundamentalist Islam. Hell, if someone wants to do anything, he just has to invent (or find) a religion that condones it, and you will not condemn that religion. My religion is the religion of murder. I want to be able to kill anyone I don’t like. Be consistent and don’t condemn my religion.

“One of the fundamental rights in this country is ‘freedom of religion’ ”

Another graduate of the Sarah Palin School of Constitutional Law – who thinks that criticism and/or condemnation of a religion violates freedom of religion! And don’t criticize anything I say, or that will impinge on my freedom of speech.

“But, if they have the votes then those who strive for Islamification have the right, under our current system, to make any changes they want. ”

Interesting. You do realize that this ‘Islamification’ infringe on people’s freedom of religion, speech, conscience, as well as a host of other things? Apparently, you think that trampling on freedom of religion is only OK if it’s part of Islamization. How ironic. Your position shows the problem of unilateral disarmament.

“Every religion thinks that every other religion is wrong – I, simply, make the logical conclusion that they are ALL wrong.”

Now that’s an argument! Also, atheists hold that religions are wrong, whereas religionists hold that atheism is wrong. I guess they are all wrong! There is and is not a god! Urban VIII thinks that Galileo is wrong, Galileo holds that the pope is wrong. I think that 2+2 is 4, my friend thinks that it’s 5. How could we ever say that anyone is right or wrong when there is… disagreement?!? Hail to the Gospel of Relativism.

“But, until all religions are yesterdays news then each has the same rights as all the others.”

Of course, that is unless the Islamization that you defend with an appeal to freedom of religion takes hold – and you think they have a “right” to do that.

]]>By: Craighttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/18/27998/comment-page-2#comment-83573
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:38:39 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27998#comment-83573I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any position that condemns one (or any) religion based on that religions own belief structure. One of the fundamental rights in this country is ‘freedom of religion’ – but, that MUST apply to all or it is valid for none.

Is it true that some followers of Islam would like to see the USA Islamicised? Yes. The same way it is true that fundamentalist Christians think we should all adhere to their way of thinking and interpretations of what is ‘right and wrong.’ I do not reject one any more than I reject the other. THEY ARE BOTH WRONG. But, if we allow one then we MUST allow the other.

Now, I wish all decisions made by consensus would be secular. But, if they have the votes then those who strive for Islamification have the right, under our current system, to make any changes they want. And if the oppressed feel that there is a need to fight the oppressor, then they should follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson and rebel against that government which denies them ‘fundamental human rights.’ But, is that what these people who are anti-Islam are suggesting, rebellion, civil-war, or a religious war Christianity against Islam fought right here in the streets of the USA. Instead of having a religious discussion and debate, let’s have a discussion based on modern morality with (God forbid) some common-sense.

Every religion thinks that every other religion is wrong – I, simply, make the logical conclusion that they are ALL wrong. If you want to hold a belief, then hold-it, close and PRIVATE. I do not need to know what your belief is nor do I want to. But, until all religions are yesterdays news then each has the same rights as all the others.